Genres

Visitors Review

kai ringler 2012-05-22 14:56:40

bookmaking dorm

watched this the other day on IFC, pretty interesting movie aboutcollege guys trying to make a buck. they set up a bare bones bookmakingsystem with an illicit way of picking up and dropping off money. asthey make more money , they upgrade to computers and the like,, onlyproblem is the mob soon finds out what the young men are up to,, thenit starts to get very interesting. not a bad little movie, especiallyfor an independent,, it's a study in bookmaking old school i guess youwould say.. everything from writing bets down on a marker board to amassive computer system,, i particularly like the express drop off andpick up at the local library,, taking envelopes full of cash andstuffing them into books that have never ever been checked out,, verysneaky but brilliant also.

wes-connors 2012-05-21 19:02:06

Wanna Bet?

A trio of college students - business major Nick Stahl (as TobyWinter), addictive roommate Johnny Galecki (as Jude Petra) and computergeeky Lukas Haas (as Casey Young) - decide to become "Bookies" and makemoney taking bets on the ballgames they watch. They become verysuccessful, then attract the criminal element. A few years ago, writerMichael Bacall might well have played the role characterized by Mr.Galecki, which may be why it had the most potential... The likable leading role is given to Mr. Stahl, who gets to narrate andpursue cute Rachel Leigh Cook (as Hunter McGuire); an athletic babe,her soccer t-shirt reads, "I love kicking balls." Director Mark Illsleyscores with a stylish chase combined with a frantic foosball game. Hisquarter toss and jump ball shots are neat, too. But, the movie's simplyway too clean, which may explain a messy post-credits scene.**** Bookies (1/20/03) Mark Illsley ~ Nick Stahl, Johnny Galecki,Rachel Leigh Cook, Lukas Haas

2012-05-17 01:12:52

BOOKIES

IS A FUN MOVIE. NICK STAHL IS A GREAT SCTOR LOOK @ WHAT HE DID IN SIN CITY. BUT THIS FILM IS A GOOD DRAMA IT ALSO HAS A FEW LAUGHS IN IT. IT ALSO HAS A REALLLYYYYY GOOOOOOOD STORY. RENT OR BUY THIS MOVIE NEXT TIME YOU SEE IT.

Peter 2012-05-16 14:01:37

Must See

Bookie was unreal.This was by far the most excuisite work done in the 21 century. Who would have thought it; 4 college kids runnin a booking market?? Brilliant! There has to be a bookie II, because if there isnt i will abandon movies for the rest of enternity. -Pete

paul-415 2012-05-07 10:50:56

fun movie

saw this flick in Blockbuster and was intrigued. I like sports gamblingand thought this was a unique and smart movie that addresses thesubject in a very clever way. Great actors with some good music and funplot twists. Not sure why this never went to the movie theaters. It hadgone to The Sundance Film Festival and it has NICK STAHL fromTerminator III and HBO's CARNIVALE, not to mention Lukas Haas andRachael Leigh Cook. AND the greatest actor from THE SOPRANOS--DavidProval, the guy that played RICHIE APRILE. Saw that writer of this cowrote MANIC, which is an AWESOME movie that I actually saw at THESUNDANCE FILM FEST a few years ago. That movie had DON CHEADLE in itand he is an acting god. If you like smart movies with some gooddialogue that handles the topic of sports gambling on college campuses,go rent BOOKIES! I bet you'll like it (hey, I couldn't resist that lastline).

2012-05-06 18:21:41

ALRIGHT

A good, young cast wears thin after a while. Not really worth seeing unless you're a sports fan.

chris dimarino 2012-04-30 05:14:55

Witty and Interesting, but Derivative

Bookies was a good movie. It had a fast pace that didn't leave youbehind and didn't tread. It had some good acting, especially by JohnnyGalecki. It had an engaging plot and interesting enough characters.However, the characters were left feeling rigid and inaccessible and attimes the movie coasted without enlightening. Bookies was an intriguing movie from the common format of a Blow typemovie. Watching a young group of three guys set up a sports bettingring, listening to their clever intricacies, then watching it fallapart. Even cocaine makes an appearance in this movie. What I thoughtwas very interesting was some of the piece shots and how some audiomontage clips were assembled very well. As i stated the acting wasgood, but Johnny Galecki made it that way. He outperformed everyone.Without him the acting was a bit stiff.There were some problems with this movie. I enjoy a movie that spendsthe time to establish the plot then moves through it briskly. But attimes this movie jets from one situation to another without explaininghow certain events happened. Given the fast plot, this created someconfusion. Also I don't think Bookies did anything to distinguishitself. But, it is a type of movie that there are so few of, that Idon't care too much.I would recommend this movie to anyone. It's not going to wow you, butit is worth the watch.

Duane Byrge 2012-04-29 15:05:46

Both a satiric and level-headed slant on collegiate life and big-time sports, Bookies is an eye-opening amusement.

Scott Weinberg 2012-04-28 23:12:07

One of those undemanding pieces of entertainment that somehow creep up on you and force you to like them. This one's doubly recommended to those familiar with the joys and sorrows affiliated with sports betting.

art_elephant 2012-04-28 06:00:44

POSSIBLE SPOILER thought it was perfect!

Most of the critiques of this movie are accurate, but that's why Iloved it!I'm not a fan of hardcore mobster stuff, I'm not a gambler, I'm not acollege student anymore, but this lets my imagination get into thoseworlds just a little bit. It gets my mind off the daily grind, withouthaving to get into really disturbing drama in any issue. I'm a guy withlittle money to spend, and I passed on several big name movies to pickup this one, cause I knew it would be exactly this, and I was notdisappointed! The performances are believable enough, the girls arecute enough, the editing is quick enough, the 'vette is cool enough,and that's enough for me!

Dennis Harvey 2012-04-26 01:03:03

Noisy, grating and morally dubious.

Rasmy 2012-04-25 18:15:03

So So

A very average film. Not that great and not that bad either. Something you could watch when there isn't anything else on...Good acting by that Rachael girl....

2012-04-23 02:44:18

A complete waste of time on every level. It's awful.

I don't know why I sat through this boring and predicable 2003 film. I guess I just kept waiting for it to get better. It didn't. The plot is about three college students who decide to become bookies. At first they succeed. Then the mob comes in. Don't bother with the stupid film. It's a complete waste of time on every level. Stay away from this loser. It's awful.

just_another_movie_watcher 2012-04-22 12:54:11

Barely Mediocre

SPOILER ALERT:I took Paul 415's advice who billed this flick as a 'fun movie' andwent to my video store and rented BOOKIES. I am glad he had funwatching it...I really didn't.When I re-read Paul's comments...it's seemed like he was plugging themovie instead of writing something about it. Talking about who is init, what they were in before, who wrote it, what the writer wrotebefore...just seemed like an over-glorified plug. Then I looked at thecredits...is Paul really Paul Greenstone, the producer of the movie?Maybe it's just a coincidence.Here's an actual review of the movie. I didn't hate it, I didn't likeit. At the end, I was wondering why it was even made. Here's my point bypoint analysis of all facets of the production, as interpreted by justanother movie goer:Performances: Nick Stahl and Johnny Galecki were standouts. However, they seemed to look lost a lot of the time, like they weretrying to figure out their motivation. Like they had a severe lack ofdirection. This applies more so to Stahl, as I feel he's a superbactor. But it didn't seem there was anything there to sink his teethinto. Rachel Leigh Cook was weak here. Way way way miscast for this role. Iknow she's a name, but c'mon. She did not fit the part. David Proval. Iagree with Paul, he was one of the best actors on the Sopranos. But hewas totally under utilized here. He was like a one-dimensional cookiecutter mobster. Same thing with his co-hort John Diehl. Here was achance for director Mark Illsley to shine, instead, he just lets thesefine actors waste away. In fact, one could construe that these mobsterswere homosexual lovers. In all their scenes, they are alone. The restaurant scene stands out...no broads, no goomas, no strippers...I was waiting for them to share akiss! That would have been at least interesting. If you're going tofollow a cliché, then do it with some panache. Have fun with it.Instead, these guys are just sitting there, reciting their lines, as ifthey were waiting for their paycheck from production. And they weren't even bad guys you love to hate...Dialogue: Very forced and out of touch. When the basketball playersaid, "So I'm your n-word now, is that it?" I wanted to puke. Theediting and camera was interesting, but it wasn't anything that hasn'tbeen done before. Same camera/editing tricks, different movie.Plot...a lot that went on on this college campus was not plausible. Themoney in the books idea was interesting, but not without a huge marginof error. When I was in college, partying and carrying on in a dorm room likethat would never happen, and neither would a functional bookmakingoperation...I know you can say, "It's just a movie!" but shouldn'tmovies try to resemble reality?Furthermore, the ending was very anti-climactic. When it's revealedthat they bet on the other side of the fixed bet, I was staring at thescreen thinking, 'That's it? That's the ending? That's the payoff?' IWANT MY MONEY BACK!Character arc. At the end, do these guys learn anything? No. Other than 'we made a lot of money, but there was too much riskinvolved.' They didn't grow...nothing learned, nothing gained.I think the main problem with this movie was it's direction. From whatI know about Mark Illsley, he's a middle aged guy from Northern Cali.Why not bring in someone younger with some edge to direct this film?Why not even let the writer, Michael Bacall, direct? He wrote it, hemust know something about the subject, plus he's younger thanIllsley...why not? Oh yeah, Illsley stirred up a lot of buzz atSundance in '99. Well, lightning doesn't strike twice it seems.Illsley's age and hip factor were extremely apparent here...he simplydid not know about this world enough to have been given the director'scap.I did see Manic, it is good, it is well done, and I cannot believe thisscript was totally the result of Michael Bacall. Maybe earlier draftsof the script were better, and there might have been too much directormeddling. The result is a barely mediocre movie.The only difference between this movie and the made for TV movie"Bigshot" is that these characters say the f-word a lot, and one ofthem uses drugs. Otherwise, this totally could have been made for TV.But then again, it was done smarter and better already with "Bigshot."Sad. This really is an interesting topic, and it really could have beenmade into a great movie. The potential to actually say something waswasted away...ah, such is Hollywood...

gamblinman2003 2012-04-14 21:26:17

Horse Puckey

SPOILER ALERTI have to agree with Industry Guy's take on this one...not even closeto the real deal. I got back two days ago from Sundance...caught alot of good flicks, suggested a few buys to my company, but toldthem to steer clear of this one. Being an avid gambler, I washoping this would be a fun movie, maybe entertaining, perhapseven worthy of praise...I went 0 for 3 on this bet. My parlay wentsouth in the first five minutes. I'd really like to know the extent ofknowledge the writer, producers, and director have on the subject.Did someone tell them they knew what they were talking about?You figure for a few thousand dollars they could have hired aconsultant to red line the script and make it at least resemblereality. First off, if I lost a bet to these chicken necks, I would havelaughed when they showed up for payment. If you're going tomake a movie about gambling, at least have a character who youbelieve will inflict damage on a dead beat. Second, what idiotwould set up an ILLEGAL bookmaking operation in their DORMROOM? Whatever happened to discretion? Are these doltsasking to be pinched? Why not have them set it up in an offcampus apartment? Third, the mafia??? Someone involved in theproduction could have at least had an iota of originality and madthe antagonist someone other than an Italian mobster!!! Howcliche. Furthermore, if the mob caught wind of their operation(which they wouldn't), they would have muscled in for a piece of theaction...NOT run them off. Fourth...fixing basketball games,shaving points, blah blah blah. The sad thing is, the money spenton this movie could have been given to someone who actuallyknows about the world of gambling and the result could have beena decent film. All that we're left with, however, is this piece ofnonsense.

pushfrog_2000 2012-04-14 14:21:10

An enjoyable movie

A good soundtrack, excellent acting, and a pleasing enough plot to keepyou from growing bored are the strong points of this movie.Unfortunately, underplayed characters, clichés, and lack of subjectknowledge held it back from its full potential.The trio of idiotic genius' are helmed masterfully by their actors,with Johnny Galecki stealing the show when his character startsslipping into the world of easy money. Unfortunately, none of thecharacters are new or fresh.Casey, a shy nerd whom we rarely get to see anything of, joins the crewwhen another character decides to "adopt" him because he was lost hisfirst day on campus - despite unwittingly setting the plans in motion,his character does little besides provide a contrasting personality tothe other two leads.Jude is a womanizing party boy who is the main schemer of the group. Heis also addicted to everything, making him very, very attached themoney and the thrill of gaining it. He tends to be the more spirited ofthe three, getting himself into the most trouble. He also providescomedy relief.Finally, the main "hero", Tobey, is excited about the plan, but is morefocused on the attractive Hunter, played by Rachel Leigh Cook. He isthe child prodigy who smooths over some of the bumpier problems, andtries to keep Jude from blowing things over the top.These three put their plans into action, only to have a problem gettingword out. After a conman's maneuver, our three characters are rollingin money, and the trouble begins.Really, the movie tries hard to be a jack of all trades, and in tryingto do so fails at being fully delightful at anything. The romance isunbelievable between Hunter and Tobey, and highly forgotten until itbecomes convenient. The supposed brotherly feelings between Jude andTobey is also lost to the wind, as the chemistry between actors justisn't there. The plot calls for the suspension of disbelief in everyscene involving the mafia, who are tame and uncreative. It also has, inmy opinion, a cheesy cop-out ending.By the time the credits roll, you really couldn't care less whathappens to the characters. In fact, in the case of Jude, you might evenbe wishing things had turned disastrous for them.However, it was a fun film, and one I'd recommend to my friends for alazy afternoon viewing.

2012-04-14 03:26:07

Best movie EVER about sports gambling

This movie really does a great job of giving us a view to the inside life of sports gambling. It shows the highs and lows and portrays them both well. I rented this movie on a whim at the local video place, saw that it starred some of todays hotter younger stars, and had a plot with something I was interested in, and thought that I would give it a whirl.Probably the most entertaining 100 minutes I've seen on video in a while.Like most movies, this one has a moral message, but it doesn't rub off in a cheesy way that makes you want to stop watching movies forever.I don't like a 5 star system, I feel it's not an accurate portrayal of movies, so I'm giving this one 9 out 10 stars. Hope you all enjoy, and if any of you know any other films about sports gambling, please let me know so I can check them out as well.POOF!

Special K 2012-04-13 09:18:27

Bookies an interesting movie

A cool movie about 3 kids in college who get into some sports betting. It quickly turns into a small income business to a multi-million dollar business. Good young actors including Nick Stahl, Lucas Haas and Rachel Leigh Cook.

t-excel 2012-04-05 10:03:30

Easy to watch

This is what every school going teenager dreams of. i always thoughtthe Netherlands where missing out on a lot. we don't have schoolcampuses here in the Netherlands, i love the idea of living on one overthese. Doesn't matter if you see it in the movies or hear from peoplewho studied in the us, the stories always sound amazing. This is one ofthe amazing examples what teenagers whit an idea and enough balls canaccomplish. to bad they had to give it up. and "Rachael LeighCook"...what a FOXX!!!!My Final conclusion; It's a easy to watch, entertaining & excitingstory. well played by the actors. Love to see a part 2 on this movie.

2012-04-05 07:07:46

bookies

I picked this up from a local video store merely because I couldnt find anything else that I havent seen thats out recently and I saw two or three other people grab it while I was in there. So, I decided to give it a try.The movie does a good job of showing the highs and lows of sports gambling in some respects. However, it does not provide an accurate portayal of many aspects that it brings about.First off, the REAL bookies that are in the mob are highly underskilled at what they do. If you have ever gotten heavy into sports gambling, on either side, you will notice that the one thing bookies have going for them is that they always know what every other bookie and better is doing. The bookies in the movie really has no idea what anyone else is doing, nor do they think things through.Second, the drug issues that arise are very inaccurate. If you look at the amount of drugs that the one student does and then follow his sleep patterns, it just doesnt match up. You dont do that much, get the adrenaline rush he does, and then come back home and fall asleep right away.Third, in the rigged game where the players are being paid off, they would never have covered the spread. In the movie, the one star player covers the spread by scoring all of the points himself, or giving it up to other players who were not involved. In real life, if you had $10,000 on the line, you would never have given the ball to anyone who would score. Money is too big of a deal in modern society to do so.There are a lot of other little issues that you wont pick out the first time you see it most likely, but overall, the acting is fairly good to some extent and the splot is pretty well developed and teaches a good lesson.I also do not agree with the 5 star rating, but also feel that 10 stars is pretty weak as well, so I will give it 83 of 100 stars, heh. So its 83% good.Its definitly worth the watch even if you arent very interested in the subject or having any contact with it. Well developed movie outside of some small inaccuracies.